2008 (5) TMI 132 - AT - Service Tax

Applicant is providing services of transport of goods by road and is paying tax on 25% of the gross amount received as per exemption Notification No. 1/2006 revenue raising demand by denying exemption as appellant has not complied with condition of non-availment of credit - case of ignorance of the provisions of service tax law no any intention to avail the benefit of the exemption wrongly by availing Cenvat credit benefit stay granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 1/2006 for goods transport services.
2. Eligibility for exemption under the notification based on availing Cenvat credit.
3. Justification of the Commissioner's order demanding service tax and imposing penalties.
4. Consideration of ignorance of service tax provisions as a mitigating factor.

Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 1/2006, which allows service providers of goods transport services to pay service tax on a value equivalent to 25% of the gross amount received, provided they do not avail Cenvat credit. The appellant claimed to have received Rs. 15.22 crores as gross amount for the financial year 2006-2007 and calculated their service tax liability accordingly.

Eligibility for Exemption and Cenvat Credit:
The appellant had availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1.10 lacs, leading to a dispute regarding their eligibility for the exemption under the notification. The Commissioner held that by availing the Cenvat credit, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Consequently, a demand of Rs. 1,39,76,300/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties under various sections.

Commissioner's Order and Penalty Imposition:
The Commissioner's order demanding service tax on the gross amount and imposing penalties was challenged by the appellant. The appellant's representative argued that the appellant's lack of familiarity with service tax provisions led them to inadvertently avail the Cenvat credit, resulting in the denial of the exemption benefit. The appellant sought a waiver of the tax, interest, and penalties based on the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Ignorance as a Mitigating Factor:
Both sides presented their arguments, with the appellant emphasizing their ignorance of the service tax provisions and unintended misuse of the Cenvat credit. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's lack of awareness and intention to wrongly avail the exemption. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found that the appellant had made a strong prima facie case for the waiver of the dues as per the order-in-original. Consequently, the stay petition was allowed unconditionally.

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding and complying with tax provisions to avoid unintended consequences. The Tribunal's decision to grant the stay petition showcases a nuanced approach in considering ignorance as a mitigating factor in tax disputes.